Logical fallacies do nothing to slow Jihad

The latest round from EO:

Rather than address the facts in this discussion, Boonton has misrepresented my (and others') positions, employed logical fallacies (including, but not limited to: ad hominem, tu quoque, non sequitur, red herring, and straw man arguments), and resorted to false analogies and unsubstantiated allegations to support his claims.

This is so frequent as to seem intentional.

In response to, "Western 'leaders' denounced the cartoons. Western editors have been fired and major media have refused to print or air the cartoons (out of "respect" for Islam)," Boonton replied,

This is not terrorism....

A non sequitur (and redundant), since, I cited the Cartoon Jihad as a means other than terrorism by which Islam seeks to accomplish its goal of subduing non-Muslims and making the world Islam.

But if you're going to have laws prohibiting insulting people's races or religions then one cannot be offended that Muslims want their cut of identity politics.

Excusing rabid charges of "Death to those who insult Islam!" and "...your 9/11 is coming!" as the reasonable expression of the desire for equal treatment under the law is immoral (and suicidal).

On the strange fact that Am. seems to know more about Islam than Muslims:

More ad hominem.

Again the argument that since millions of Muslims are not currently engaged in actual warfare and/or terrorism against non-Muslims, Allah must not require it and Jihad must not be a central part of Islam. This in spite of Allah's clearly commanding it, Islam's history of violence against the Infidel and Apostate, and the millions of Muslims expressing support for Islamic terrorism/jihad at the ballot box and in opinion polls.

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

No, you did not say that this was some obscure passage in the Koran that many Muslims might be ignorant of. You said this was 'obvious' and even a person totally unschooled in Islam could catch it from reading translated passages. Not only that, you've previous argued that Sura 9 is one of the most important passages being one of the later ones! If this was the only rational meaning then mass ignorance is simply not a viable argument.

Actually, I wrote, "...I have not argued that all Muslims believe a certain way, I have argued that Islam's god and prophet require Jihad against the Infidel, which is obvious when you examine their texts."

As far as "mass ignorance" in concerned, in an October 29, 2001 article Daniel Pipes wrote, "...two authoritative studies carried out by scholars found that American Muslims number under 2 million - less than a third of the hitherto-consensus number." If that figure is doubled for 2006, the percentage of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims in the United States is only 0.33%.

Assuming all U.S. Muslims are ignorant of Allah's commands for Jihad in Qur'an and Hadith (which most assuredly is untrue), is it unreasonable to suggest that less than half of one percent of the adherents of a religion are unfamiliar with their religion's authoritative texts? What percentage of American Christians are Biblically-illiterate? Ten-percent? Fifty-percent? How many more are willing to compromise on essential Biblical teachings regarding Creation, abortion, and homosexuality?

I do not doubt that many American Muslims want to avoid knowing Qur'an and Hadith. After watching a news story about more Islamic terrorism with a man who came to the U.S. from Iran two decades ago, he lamented, "I don't know why they do that." I replied, "Because Qur'an commands it. And they would consider you an unbeliever." He said nothing more, but looked pained.

This would indeed be like Jews being ignorant of Moses or Christians Christ.

Muslim ignorance of Mohammed would be equivalent to Christian ignorance of Christ.

You're telling me that Muslims could be so ignorant of what you're saying is so essential to their texts?

That Jihad is essential to traditional Islam is a matter of fact established by the clear words of Allah, the words and deeds of his apostle, and the history of Islam.

Here again is the effort to make the lack of widespread Muslim violence in the West evidence of Allah's not requiring it, despite clear textual evidence to the contrary. Boonton's taken one (charitable) explanation for why decent, Western Muslims follow such a god (ignorance of Qur'an and Sunnah) and twisted it into an argument that the commands don't exist.

What's next? Christian sin as proof that Christ doesn't command holiness?

Bin Laden is not a stupid man, he even visited Western nations. He did not expect any mass conversion to islam. He most likely wanted what you're giving him. A war on Islam by the west that he could exploit to unite Arabs under a single banner.

I'm giving him? I wish I had known sooner I was president.

Mohammed is not around to ask.

Actually, “Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

I've provided you with a long list of various Muslim's who have written about what Jihad means....

Long list? Where? I must have missed it since I was citing what Allah and Mohammed said.

Even for those inclined to your meaning of Jihad....

Allah's meaning of Jihad, as is clear from his Qur'an and Mohammed's exposition and example.

...there's a much broader meaning that includes both advocating Islam to non-believers as well as the internal struggle against sin in one's own life.

That there are other meanings does not negate the fact that the martial use is the one found throughout Qur'an and Hadith.

You nicely illustrate how the same text can be read in two different ways...On the other hand obeying 'God-ordained authorities' was used to argue for the 'Divine right of Kings'. As I pointed out if "seperation of Church and State" was obvious from the Bible it certainly took Christians a long time to figure it out.

Boonton nicely illustrates how the same text can be misread (or ignored altogether) to suit one's purposes.

The two [Allah and YHWH] are one in the same.

Only one ignorant of either the Bible or Qur'an (or both) can make such a statement.

If you read a Bible in Arabic (and there are Arabic Christians who, believe it or not, read Arabic Bibles just as we read English ones) the word used for God will be Allah...But for someone who chides me for not doing enough research I'd think you'd do better than deploy the old Jack Chick argument here.

There are Arabic Christians? They have Bibles? They read? Christ and Allah must be the same deity because Arabic-speaking Christians and Arabic-speaking Muslims use the same noun for both? What's next, Baal is Vishnu is Donald Trump? But they're all 'gods' in English!

It appears that not only does Boonton possess an intricate knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern religious texts, he is also an Arabic grammarian. Or, he is confusing the most simplistic and superficial explanation for the truth.

A little "delving" on this topic might reveal that using the same noun in two different contexts for two different deities does not mean the deities are the same one. The proper name for God in any Bible translated into English is YHWH. His Son's name translated into English is Jesus, the Messiah. That Mohammed used the traditional Arabic word for god (used by Christians centuries before Mohammed) does not mean they are the same God, just that Mohammed spoke Arabic (and perhaps, that he was trying to make his new religion palatable to Jews, Christians, and the pagans of Arabia).

The two religions' authoritative texts reveal the two cannot be the same god:

-Christ says He is the Son of God. Allah said he has no son and that anyone who says he does is a blasphemer.
-Christ says, "Love your enemies." Allah said, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."
-Christ never sinned. Allah justified Mohammed's murdering, thieving, enslaving, and raping (even of a nine-year-old girl).

If Boonton is right, his god is either intentionally deceitful, so mentally unstable as to be unable to keep his story straight, or unable to preserve the integrity of his revelations.

The argument that was asserted is that Muslims who take their religion serious must believe their duty to God is to kill non-believers....

Allah commands the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing Infidels "until all religion is for Allah." Mohammed fought against, subdued and humiliated, and killed Infidels in obedience to Allah. A devout Muslim must obey Allah and imitate Mohammed.

...therefore we must assume Muslims 'guilty until proven innocent'

No, we should expect that Muslims will obey their god and (false) prophet. To imply that Muslims are "guilty" for obeying Allah is not very tolerant, is it?

The problem with this is that ample evidence has been presented that many Muslims share alternative readings of their texts than one would take at first glance....

A couple of lines from a questionable article containing a good deal of contradictory material (as noted by Chris) is ample evidence?

This is relevant because it does not show that a serious Muslim must abide by the readings of Bin Laden and Amillennialist (I wonder if our friend realizes that his stuff would make excellent literature for Al Qaeda; "want to be a good Muslim, then you must help us kill people").

Again, it's not my "stuff," it's Allah's: "...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)...." (Qur’an 9:5).

What is important here is that there is nothing special about the Muslim religion that makes it any more dangerous than any other.

Nothing but the universal command to "...fight them on until...there prevail...faith in Allah altogether and everywhere...." (Qur'an 8:39).

So Chris and Amillennialist know more about Islam than Ijaz does?

Allah's words, Mohammed's example, and Islam's history are all available to the Infidel with an ISP. Even Mansoor admits the Qur'anic texts on Jihad and Jew-hating. He just wants to limit those passages in a way traditional Islam has never limited them.

The text(s) for any serious religion are complicated and often interpreted in manners that often seem to contradict a common sense first glance reading.

Which has not been demonstrated with Qur'an and Hadith. Indeed, Boonton's only demonstrated that for him, English is "complicated and often interpreted in manners that often seem to contradict a common sense first glance reading."

Without getting into a debate over whether we should be reading the author's intent or our response to the text...

Yes, since a subjective approach to 9:5 would sound something like, "What does '...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them' mean to you?"

the fact remains if these were repair manuals then the job of theologians would have been done in two or three weeks. Yet, in fact, thousands of years later they still type away.

Which of course does not mean that those theologians are necessarily contradicting their religion's authoritative texts.

If, as Boonton would have us believe, their work implies a continued reinterpretation of established meaning, then Augustine, Luther, and Graham must be contradicting Christ's commands also, right?

In Judiasm the commentaries of the theologians (Rabbis) have even become their own type of sacred scripture. Needless to say the Catholic tradition has its own clear understanding that one needs to do more than just read the Bible to avoid error. While many non-Catholics may scoff at this the Protestant tradition hardly dispenses with the work of great commentators whether you're talking about Saint Augustine or just Billy Graham.

Of course, Augustine, Luther, and Graham are essential for understanding that when Jesus says, "Obey My commands," He really means, "Do whatever this really means to you."

Actually it nicely demonstrates my case. No doubt those sects will tell you that they are faithful to the text of the Bible.

But they're demonstrably wrong.

They almost certainly will be honest in the sense that they honestly believe their view is endorsed by the text.

But they're honestly wrong.

...Yet you're shocked at the suggestion your reading of jihad....

Allah's reading of Jihad, since he says, "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

...any Muslim who doesn't agree must either be ignorant of the Koran or secretly be rejecting it?

Or waiting. Or afraid. Or any number of other reasons. It depends on the individual. None of which changes the words of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

Except for the fact that the vast bulk of Muslims do not seem to be supporting offensive jihad, seem to refrain from exercising it even when they could do so with minimal chance of getting caught or suffering harm.

"Seem." As noted previously, there are a number of ways to aid Jihad, and a number of reasons for not acting at a particular time. (Not to mention the support expressed for Jihad/terrorism by millions around the world.)

It strains credibility to excuse this disconnect of your theory with the facts by saying they just may not have realized what the Koran says or may be waiting for the 'right time' to pounce.

"Allah's" theory. This alleged "disconnect" does not change his words or Mohammed's example.

I'm pointing out that there are perfectly valid readings of the Koran that do not reach the conclusions you say they do.

No valid alternative readings of 9:5 and others have been demonstrated. All that has been noted (and I've not seen anyone disagree with this) is that the word "jihad" does have alternative meanings. Amazingly enough, there are a few English words that also have more than one meaning.

Perhaps Boonton can "delve" into his Wiki and consult his "long list" of Muslim scholars on what major schools of Islamic thought reject Surah 9 and the call for offensive warfare against the Infidel to make the world Islam as a false revelation?

Unlike his conspiracy theories, there is nothing secret about Allah's commands and the example of his (false) prophet. Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira are all freely available to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

More to the point have you shown us that the Wikipedia quotes came from scholars who were not writing for Muslim audiences?

Chris noted the contradictions to Boonton's selective citations. More to the point, instead of addressing Allah's commands for Jihad against the Infidel, Boonton resorts to setting up straw men and red herrings.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You get all huffy because I point out it is pretty hard to believe many Muslims are ignorant of the Koran.

Qur'anic-illiteracy was offered as one of several explanations for the relative lack of Islamic violence in the West (in America, at least).

Apparently, Boonton would rather interpret the (relative) absence of violence as the absence of the Commands, a belief so contrary to the evidence as to be inexplicable.

The assertion that Jihad is not an essential doctrine in Islam is clearly and forever discredited by Allah and his apostle.

If those that are don't talk about it how do they go about converting people?

"Hi, Infidel. Become a Muslim. By the way, you'll have to kill for Allah when called upon." That will appeal to prospective converts.

If those educating others about Islam neglect to mention a key doctrine then it will cease to be part of Islam.

Unfortunately, many of those educating others about Islam do mention it. Even worse (for the Infidel), they have the clear words of Allah and his apostle to justify their teaching. Qur'an and Sunnah always leads to Jihad.

It's interesting, when presented in digest form, how your words dovetail with the agenda of people like Bin Laden.

It's interesting how Boonton's words dovetail with Jihad's apologists practicing taqiyya to deceive gullible Infidels. To anyone who's "delved" into Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, the reason for the similarity should be obvious.

Note above the implication; if a person of good will will be so disgusted then logically they would have to give up being a Muslim.

Many people endure, excuse, ignore, rationalize, or deny unpleasant truths. It doesn't seem unreasonable that decent Muslims might also do this.

I could buy this except for the fact that secret conspiracies fall apart as you add more people.

Apart from stubbornly ignorant and morally-blind Infidels, the West's ignorance of Jihad is crumbling. More and more non-Muslims are becoming aware of Allah's will for them.

The 'secrets' of Scientologists and Freemasons, for example, can be plucked for free from hundreds of web sites.

The words of Allah and his (false) prophet are available for free from hundreds of Islamic web sites. All it takes is the courage to examine them.